Development of Healing: Improvement of the Medical and Curative Practices - Essay Example

Professional studies Development of healing. Illness is as old as humankind is, thus an attempt to mitigate in situations of illness in an age long undertaking that has been remodeled within different periods. Nature of diseases and social perspective have contributed significantly in influencing the understanding of sickness. Thus this study will purpose to trace and analyzes the understanding, development and the changes that have occurred in the improvement of the medical and curative practices throughout different age periods (Young, 2003). The medieval understanding of illness dates back to 30,000 BC during the prehistoric (Shanandar period). During these periods, the tribal healers and the Shamans were entitled to the responsibility of managing illnesses and infections. Healing at this time was believed to be through the action of the supernatural powers. The application of concoction to the infected wound was a widely practiced course of healing mitigation, and supernatural powers were left to take the natural course of action (Claridge & Fabian, 2005). In Mesopotamia and Egypt at around 2000 BC, medicine was derived from the preparation of plant leaves and barks. The act of healing was at this period separated from the notion that it was supernatural, thus drugs were believed to be significant that supernatural in healing. In the ancient Greece at around 650BC, illness was viewed to be as a result of an imbalance of the body fluids. The misappropriation between the black bile, yellow bile, Phlegm and blood being responsible for the course of illness (Various, 2012). During this period, the Greek documentation through the work of Hippocratic writers stressed on lifestyle changes as an alternative to the drug therapy. During the renaissance period, monks and monasteries who were the healers believed that sins caused illnesses. However, the healers of this period applied the use of medical herbs from the gardens as a means of curing infections. The renaissance period saw the turning point in the type of medication used as there was a lot of devotion to the preparation of medicines that were easy to swallow. This point saw the beginning of the separation between the duties of the pharmacists and the physicians. There was a wider development in the knowledge of anatomy that was necessary for the performance of surgeries that had become widespread (Kemp, 2006). The dispensation and the standard for medicine preparation were thus developed. The establishment of the modern scientific methods of treatment and drug preparation owes a lot of its roots to the renaissance period. Nevertheless, the field of medicine graduated from a form where physicians learned through training by observation from a competent physician to being a profession of formal learning. The development of the scientific technology in the modern era thus contributed significantly in aiding in diagnostic measures and improvement of the curative measures thus making medical treatment available and affordable to most people (Labisch, 2001). Biomedical model of health care delivery. In the early traditional medicine, the art of treatment was not Merely for the achievement of the physical well-being, but it was projected to cover the mental and emotional well-being. The wider scope of the early treatment was due to a belief that supernatural powers had an integral role to play in the healing process. The emotional and spiritual support to the ill was accorded as an intervention for the enhancement of the action by the supernatural powers. The nature of treatment of the early healers has had some contrast to the biomedical model in understanding an aspect of illness and health (Huang & Hsu, 2005). The biomedical model is a model that is used by the physicians in diagnostic of infections and understanding of illnesses. The application of this model into health care practice was adopted in the early nineteenth century. In accordance to the biomedical model, health is understood to be constituted of being free from pain, disease or any other defect. The model thus focuses on the physical aspect of health like the pathological conditions, its manifestation, prevention and management. The model thus does not consider the spiritual aspect of a person’s health as well as the social factors that may contribute to ill health (Kelsh, Székely, & Stuart, 2011). The application of the biomedical model in the management of infections purely focuses on the physiological factors that are concerned with the causation and influence illness. The proponents of the biomedical model as a means for management of infections had a set of beliefs that; illnesses, their signs, and symptoms are as a resultant effect from an abnormality within the body system. The discovery of body organ that influences the health condition was an important diagnostic procedure that would lead to the elimination of the course of illness thus resulting to the well-being (Stead et al, 2011). Equally, the model argued that all diseases present with specific symptoms, which may be immediate in presentation or could be delayed in presentation. The presence of a symptom was an indicator for the address of the specific course of infection thus the symptom was not to be individually managed. In this regard, health was understood to be an absence of disease. In the management of the health condition through the application of the biomedical model, the patient was a passive recipient of the health care and was considered a victim of circumstance in the acquisition of the disease. The model thus stipulated that the patients had no role in the prevention of the infections. The physician was thus the sole determinant of the interventions to be administered to the patient and the controller of the course of treatment (Holden & Karsh, 2010). Biomedical model – a reductionist approach of treatment. Biomedical model has led to a lot of influence in the current health care delivery with an immense understanding of the diseases and their causes. Borrowing from the development of the diagnostic method and the understanding of the germ theory of diseases, the biomedical model has played a crucial role in the management of illnesses. Nevertheless, failure to concentrate on other aspects of life that would holistically address the causes of health and ill health makes the model to be viewed as a reductionist approach to health care (Fuchs, 2009). In a holistic understanding of health care, health is considered a state of both physical, mental, spiritual, emotional and social well-being. A holistic approach of health addresses other factors that may not be strictly related to the ill health but are core influencers to the health situations. Inferring to the aspect of Florence Nightingale’s environmental approach of management of infections, Nightingale believed and was scientifically proven that the environment has an influence on the health and recovery from infections. Therefore, overriding of factors such as environmental factors in addressing the health situation of an individual through a biomedical model renders the model to be a reductionist approach in health care (Porter, 2010). Concerning the biomedical model, it was believed that the human body could be cured and manipulated by an introduction of chemical substances that are meant to restore the chemical balance in the body. The use of drugs was thus viewed as a strategy for addressing the deficiencies of the immunity in the body thus aid in the fight for the infection. Nevertheless, insinuating that the move was an idealistic reductionist approach, there are other infections and conditions that cannot be managed through drug therapy (Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006). Mental illness is an aspect of ill health that was not conclusively addressed by the biomedical model. As much as drug therapy is essential in the management of mental illness, it is crucial to identify other conditions of the mind that are caused by past experiences that affect the cognitive process. The use of psychotherapy that is not addressed in the biomedical model is the most appropriate in addressing situations of these kinds of illnesses (Kozarić-Kovačić, 2008). The failure to take into an account of the missing communication between the physician and the patient leads to lack of social concern for the well-being of the patient. This approach makes the patient to be viewed as an object of experimentation with the resultant outcome of treatment depending on the drug therapy. The nature of the physician and patient relationship this offers a concrete proof that the biomedical model forms a category of a reductionist approach in health care delivery (Claridge & Fabian, 2005). Social approach to health care. In regard to WHO, the social approach to health care is determined by the social factors that influence the well-being of a person. The social factors are holistic factors that are present in the daily life of an individual. In accordance to the social approach of health care delivery, the environment, the economic status and the social well-being have an intrinsic role to play in the determination of a health outcome (Britain, 2012). It is thus important to note that, basing on the social approach of health care delivery, the health problems of individuals differs in accordance to the social status of people. The poor are predisposed to certain kinds of infections while the rich are also predisposed to a different kind of infections. In addressing the health conditions of an individual, other than the pathological consideration, the social approach concentrates on the social aspects and influences that are important for the determination of the treatment outcome (Derose & Varda, 2009). The core difference between social approach and biomedical approach is the perception of the patient during the treatment process. Unlike the biomedical approach, that does not in cooperate the patient in the treatment process; the social approach views the patient as a partner in health care delivery. The client is involved in the planning of care and designing the objective of treatment outcome; thus, the patient has a lot of input in cooperation to ensure that the treatment design is achieved (Rasanathan et al, 2011). The social approach of health care delivery is more of a preventive approach to health care while the biomedical model is a curative aspect of healthcare. Through a social approach, the importance of an individual’s environment is given priority in designing the prevention of infections. Through research activities, it had been determined that the environment plays a role in harboring of infections. As a mean of preventing the infections, community outreach services are conducted with the aim of ensuring that the chain of infection is destroyed. On the other hand, the biomedical model waits for the patients to present with infections and come to the health care facility for the medical intervention to be carried out (Peter, 2001). The use of other non-medical approaches in the solution of ill health makes the social approach a holistic model of health care delivery. Services like psychotherapy when appropriately used are important in the cure of psychological conditions like traumatic events that cannot be cured through a medical approach. The holistic nature of the social approach in health care makes it have the upper hand as compared to the biomedical model (Dookie & Singh, 2012). Psychological approach to health and illness. The psychological approach to health and illness views health as a factor that is influenced by social conditions such as such as cultural influence, social support, and family relationship. Involvement in a major traumatizing event can also have a significance on the health of an individual. An example like the veterans of war who witnessed great magnitude of impact and war atrocities are highly predisposed to situations of mental disability that may be acute in presentation or long term presenting. In accordance to the psychological approach, interventions on the mental influencers of health are essential for the achievement of the well-being of the patient (Weinman, Johnston, & Molloy, 2006). In psychological approach to health and illness, stress is a major contributing factor to the well-being of an individual. The level of stress is equally related to the social classes. The poor are normally stresses on the perspective of meeting the physiological needs while the rich are stressed on the means for sustenance of actualization needs. Both forms of stress are predisposing factors to occurrences of ill health. Nevertheless, among the socially deprived, stress related conditions are more likely to cause morbidity and mortality as they are likely to be predisposed to infections, resulting from poor living conditions and the nutritional standards (Ogden, 2005). Social stress model evaluates the relationship between people and the general environment. According to this model of health determination, the social stress makes people sicker. It is evident that people who have fewer associates and friends are more likely to fall sick of conditions like the cardiovascular diseases. This is more common among the rich who are often secluded than the poor who interact with one another in a more common basis. Research evidences suggest that a conflict with immediate family members is likely to predispose someone to ill situations, as the magnitude of stress is higher when it occurs between close family members that from people with loose link (Haslam et al, 2004). Self-efficacy is a direct controller of human behavior. The beliefs of health efficacy determine whether health behavior will be changed or not. Regardless of the amount and reception of health information, a personal initiative and drive is necessary for the change of health behavior. Self-efficacy thus impact on the health situation of an individual through the influence of health goals and objectives (Castañeda et al, 2010). Inequality in the distribution of health care services and distribution of health care access are a significant determinant in the health care quality. Inequality can be in relation to social class discrimination, gender, cultural and ethnic discrimination. Inability to consume the health care services thus leads to poor health outcome and an increased rate of morbidity and mortality. Inequality can at the same time be in the form of economic discrimination. In the instance when there is an economic discrimination in the form of employment, there would be difficulty in affording the health care cost thus the poor will be more predisposed to ill health (Freberg et al, 2011). Work cited. Britain, G. (2012). health and social care act 2012. health (p. 16). Castañeda, H., Nichter, M., Nichter, M., & Muramoto, M. (2010). Enabling and sustaining the activities of lay health influencers: lessons from a community-based tobacco cessation intervention study. Health Promotion Practice, 11, 483–492. Claridge, J. A., & Fabian, T. C. (2005). History and development of evidence-based medicine. In World Journal of Surgery (Vol. 29, pp. 547–553). Derose, K. P., & Varda, D. M. (2009). Social Capital and Health Care Access: A Systematic Review. Medical Care Research and Review, 66, 272–306. Dookie, S., & Singh, S. (2012). Primary health services at district level in South Africa: a critique of the primary health care approach. BMC Family Practice. Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37, 90–92. Fuchs, V. R. (2009). Eliminating “waste” in health care. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 2481–2482. Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., O'Brien, A., & Jacobs, E. (2004). Social identity, social influence and reactions to potentially stressful tasks: Support for the self-categorization model of stress. Stress and Health, 20, 3–9. Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43, 159–172. Huang, H. P., & Hsu, L. P. (2005). Development of a wearable biomedical heath-care system. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS (pp. 2739–2744). Kelsh, R. N., Székely, T., & Stuart, S. (2011). Why should biomedical scientists care about biodiversity? Current Biology, 21. Kemp, P. (2006). History of regenerative medicine: looking backwards to move forwards. Regenerative Medicine, 1, 653–669. doi:10.2217/17460751.1.5.653 Kozarić-Kovačić, D. (2008). Integrative psychotherapy. In Psychiatria Danubina (Vol. 20, pp. 352–363). Labisch, A. (2001). Medicine, History of. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 9539–9545). Ogden, J. (2005). Health Psychology. In Introduction to Psychology (pp. 408–427). Peter, F. (2001). Health equity and social justice. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18, 159–170. Porter, M. E. (2010). What is value in health care? The New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 2477–2481. Rasanathan, K., Montesinos, E. V., Matheson, D., Etienne, C., & Evans, T. (2011). Primary health care and the social determinants of health: essential and complementary approaches for reducing inequities in health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65, 656–660. Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. The American Psychologist, 61, 774–788. Stead, W. W., Searle, J. R., Fessler, H. E., Smith, J. W., & Shortliffe, E. H. (2011). Biomedical informatics: changing what physicians need to know and how they learn. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 86, 429–434. Various. (2012). Key Advances in Medicine. Nature Reviews, Nature Rev, 1–90. Weinman, J., Johnston, M., & Molloy, G. (2006). Health Psychology. Health Psychology Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology American Psychological Association, 22, 533–579. Young, J. H. (2003). Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America (review). Bulletin of the History of Medicine. Read More